Nerm

I read a theory last night about what may happen at Winterfell. It makes so much sense that I very much expect it to happen.

My primary demand is that Nymeria comes out of nowhere, with a huge pack of wolves, just when it looks like Arya is hopelessly surrounded by a massive number of the NK's army.

I don't know if the dead can use bows, but if they can, the Giants have bows big enough to take down a dragon.

A few of the things I am interested in are: 1. If Jon will even want anyone to know he is a Targeryen? I think that hurts him more than it helps him both with the Northerners and with Danny's armies. The Dothraki and Unsullied are not fighting for her because of the Targeryen bloodline. The Northern people don't seem to think the bloodline means a Targeryen should be their leader, and the info may make them more skeptical of Jon. I would keep the whole thing quiet if I was him. The one way I can think of revealing the info in a way that would change public opinion may be if Danny ordered a dragon to burn Jon and the dragon refused or it did not harm him. 2. How does Jamie not get killed next episode? He killed Danny's father and tried to kill her as well. The Starks have no reason to stand up for him. Tyrion will stick up for him, but I don't know if that holds much weight with others. It seems like Bran, of all people, will have to make a case for him to live.

Man, I can empathize with that. I rewatched the episodes with my wife after I was few seasons in. I was super excited to see her reaction to the red wedding episode. Then, right when the stabbing began (which blew my mind when I first watched it), she pauses the show and says she wants to go have a smoke. I was like WTF? Did you see that girl getting stabbed in the belly? On a side note, your wording about feeling like you could die of a heart attack while watching the show hits home for me. The night I watched the Nights Watch episode with Jon Snow... I actually did have a heart attack. That is no joke, it was my second heart attack (one the year prior). My wife swears that she thinks it was because I was so pissed about what happened on the episode. To tell the truth, I don't remember anything else about that night, or the following several days... But when I woke in the hospital,I did remember watching that. Now that is the kind of entertainment that I am willing to pay monthly fees to watch.

Maybe, there is a trend towards the good guys killing the bad guys in recent seasons. One thing I could not forgive is if the Hound and the Mountain fought, and the Mountain won. Unless maybe Aryia(sp?) then killed the Mountain.

I'm also four episodes in. The episode with the three robots was my favorite so far. Very funny. I really liked three of the four that I have seen so far.

I would explain why I think that is a very naive way to look at the act of cold readings... which is a centuries old practice. But I have learned the hard way, through conversations with my wife, that it will just make people angry with me. So, I will say you might be right, and I may be wrong. The most bizarre aspect of my discussions with my wife is that she does not believe there is an afterlife... but if I tell her that it is bull**** that the guy is talking to someone who is in the afterlife, she gets mad at me and explains why there is no other way he could have known that stuff. If I point this contradiction out to her, she gets very, very mad at me.

Never seen the bachelor, but I disagree that it is the worst. My wife watches Hollywood Medium... That is the WORST. The dude pretends that he has never heard of the D list celebs that he gives readings to. Then he proves his psychic abilities by telling them things about themselves that you can find on their Wikipedia and Facebook pages. The "celebrities" show their shock and amazement. Finally, the Hollywood Medium tells them some dead family member is happy in the afterlife and wants them to know how much they love them. Celeb then cries and tells the medium how greatful they are to know their dead relative is at peace.

I was wondering the same thing. I don't know anything about the dude, but when I see the Titans offense, It doesn't seem like there is a lot to get excited about. On the other hand, maybe they would be epic with Rodgers running the show.

I'm doing some contracting for a company that contracts for treatment services in the Bureau of Prisons. I called the company to see if I should still be providing treatment to people during the shutdown. The company didn't know, and they told me the person who could answer that will not be able to tell me until the shutdown ends. I'm continuing to provide mental health services at this point. If I don't get paid, I'll live, these guys need someone to give a damn about them. But, I have to say, I will think twice about ever working with the federal prison system again... Regardless of why this shutdown happened.

I have my own bias as a Cowboys fan... But does it seem odd that people make the case that the NFL is trying to help Dallas win... but they don't call as many penalties on the Cowboys opponents as they do against the Cowboys. Cowboys opponents also get more yards and first downs from penalties than the Cowboys do. The Saints just lost to the Cowboys in a close game. The only touchdown they had was on a drive that was aided by FOUR penalties against the Cowboys finished off with a TD that could have been called back due to offensive pass interference. Do do you think Cowboys fans are thinking the NFL has their back when it comes to the refs? The refs are very inconsistent, and miss a lot of calls, but they are not calling games to help one team over another.

I looked a little further into the stats. In the last 7 games, a Cowboys opponent has been flagged more than Dallas in only one game. The Jags had one more penalty in their 40-7 loss to Dallas. I think every thing would have to go right for Dallas to win that game. Strip sacks, fumbled punt returns, massive time of possession advantage. I would even add blocked punts, except the Saints don't punt every game.

It seems odd to me how the NFL went about setting this up. In the previous Redskins-Cowboys game, one of the major national storylines was how much the refs robbed Dallas (usually prefaced with the comment "I hate the Cowboys, but..." Then, when Dallas plays Philly, the Eagles don't get called for a single penalty all game. In the days leading up to thanksgiving, there is a yahoo sports article about how strange it is that no Cowboys opponent has been called for offensive holding since the first half of their second game of the season. Then in the Thanksgiving game the most "egregious" missed call (helmet to helmet) occurs when the Cowboys already have a win probability of over 99%. The NFL doesn't seem to be very good at timing their calls to help Dallas lead the division.

I just watched two old HBO series that I heard good things about but had never seen. I finished The Wire, and I'm on the last season of Sopranos. I enjoyed them both a lot. Interesting characters, good drama, and understated humor. I would recommend them to those who enjoy crime dramas.

Now that you mention it, my wife tells me I'm having false memories anytime I bring up things she has said in previous arguments with me. Maybe I have a problem...

I disengaged from this discussion a few days back, but I was reading some of the issues regarding memory research, and I thought I would add my 2 cents again, as my training in clinical psychology (like Dr. Ford's) may be of interest to others. With the issue of repressed memories, there is a high likelihood that any memory was forgotten/repressed for a significant length of time is going to be completely inaccurate. I have not seen any reports suggesting that Dr. Ford's memories were repressed or forgotten. From what I can tell, she states that she did not discuss them with others, not that she had forgotten them. This is a big difference when it comes to deciding if such memories are likely to relate to something that actually occurred. Having said that, we all have false and distorted memories. Our brains do not work like video recorders. We remember things by recreating events in our minds, not by replaying the recording of what happened. As time goes by, the details can change. I have worked with Veteran's that have traumatic combat memories of one soldier helping to evacuate another soldier... only to find out later that those two soldiers were not in the field at the same time. The soldier basically told me "I cant shake the memory of when Mr X helped me carry Mr Y out of the field... but then I talked to Mr X... and he said that Mr. Y had been evacuated and sent back home before X joined our unit. Why do I keep having nightmares about this?" I was actually able to identify one of my own false memories. I'm a Cowboys fan, and I clearly remember my excitement when it became clear that Dallas was going to beat the 49ers in the 1992 NFC championship game. Aikman drops back, hits Alvin Harper on a slant late in the 4th qtr. The announcer says "Harper is breaking away!" I jump up yelling and screaming in excitement!!! Only problem is... I was watching the TV in South Dakota. The audio that I vividly remember is from the Cowboys radio crew in Texas. I didn't actually hear that until much later. But I do remember it clear as day. It is my favorite football memory of all time... and it is incorrect. None of this is to cast doubt on Dr. Ford or to suggest BK did not assault her. Just trying to point out that memories for either of them can be distorted over time.

I hear what everyone is saying on this issue, and I could very well be wrong on the points I made. I don't view his dishonesty as irrelevant. I'm going to bow out of this discussion now. I tend to avoid discussing things that relate to politics, but I occasionally put in my 2 cents... then regret it soon after. No disrespect to those who engaged me on these issues. I will continue to read this thread, and I enjoy the contributions of those discussing these issues.

I was wary about commenting on this issue, as I kind of expected to end up acting like the guy's defense attorney... and I don't even like him. I'm just making a distinction between him being dishonest and him committing the specific crime of perjury. I think he was stupid to portray himself as a boy scout. But that is different from saying that he couldn't possibly currently view himself as someone who was not out of control or disrespectful to females when he was younger. I think it is reasonable for people to think that his testimony was disqualifying, I'm really just arguing about the definition of perjury... and I fully admit that I am no expert on the issue.

Regarding links, looking at the Vox article I mentioned earlier, it is not actually addressing the testimony that he made this week. It was from past testimony, my mistake (but that doesn't mean that I committed perjury ?). https://www.vox.com/2018/9/7/17829320/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing-perjury There are a lot of articles addressing the issue of what it means to be a material statement, but there is also a lot of grey area about what is considered material and what isn't. In general, I would say that nothing the judge said on Fox has anything to do with what would be considered perjury. He wasn't under oath, and he can make up whatever he wants to in that setting. I think the key is to look at the specific words he used while under oath. You then have to take those specific words and prove that he did not believe what he said at the time. How can you prove that Kavanaugh remembered blackouts in the past, or considered what he was feeling when really drunk to be a blackout? Those kinds of issues make perjury particularly difficult to prove. Also, there is a lot of subjectivity. Can you prove that Kavanaugh currently believes that his drinking 35 years ago was problematic and excessive? It doesn't matter what others think, you have to show that when he made the statement, he knew that it was objectively false. I think the way he avoided responding to questions directly, made statements that were tangentially related to the questions he was asked, and generally avoided giving specific information, will allow him to avoid any legal charges of perjury.

I have not read the transcripts, but this is a quote I found: “My friends and I, boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer... The drinking age as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink.” So, I see this quote as misleading. But if you look at the words, he never even said that he was drinking legally. I think he was able to be deceitful with this comment without committing perjury. Again, not the kind of behavior that I would want from a judge, but I don't think it meets the legal definition of perjury.

The standard for perjury is not just if he lied. The lie has to be about a material fact that is important to the allegation. The legal drinking age thing is not relevant to the issue of whether he assaulted Dr. Ford. Same thing as his response to the question of whether he watched Dr. Ford's testimony. Perjury is not simply lying under oath, there are more elements to it, from what I understand. I'm not making the case that he was truthful, I'm just saying that he did not commit the crime of perjury this week. At least that is my understanding, and I very well could be wrong.

I have been hesitant to weigh in on this issue, as any comments perceived as supporting Kavanaugh tend to be viewed as an attack on women. So, please don't interpret my comments as being dismissive of what he is alleged to have done. I don't have a favorable opinion of the guy at all. However... From what I can tell, almost no legal analysts think that anything the guy has said amounts to perjury. Perjury isn't simply being dishonest under oath, there is more to it than that. Issues such as his descriptions of drinking patterns or blackouts may be untruthful, but then you would have to prove he was knowingly lying about these things this week. Can it be proven that he remembers times that he blacked out drinking 35 years ago? Even if you have video of him being blackout drunk in 1986, that does not mean that he committed perjury by denying it this week. My knowledge on this is limited, but from what I have read on fairly left wing outlets (such as Vox), there is not a case to be made for perjury. Also, I'm not surprised by the limitations of the scope of the FBI investigation. I assumed that the investigation would focus on the specific events of assaulting Dr. Ford and exposing himself. I think outcome of the investigation really comes down to finding corroborating witnesses to the event described by Dr. Ford, or some form of documentation from the mid 80's referencing the event. The best bet would be finding out who drove her home, and that person being able to remember that Dr. Ford was showing signs of distress at that time. I'm not even sure if corroboration of the exposure event would be enough, as it was so long ago, and it is much less serious issue than a sexual assault. Please don't take these comments as any kind of dismissal of the allegations, or support for Kavanaugh's confirmation. Just some thoughts I had about some of the issues being discussed.

I was thinking the other day that the problems with our government are never going to get better, because by definition we will always have politicians making the decisions. Maybe it would be better to "draft" groups of random citizens, then vote on them to see who gets the job. Obviously this would be flawed and unworkable, but I hate the nature of politics.

My guess would be that the scope would be limited to the specific allegations of assault. As in, what evidence is there that the specific events that he is being accused of happened as they are described. Not issues such as did he get drunk a lot, or was he sexually active.